Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18630 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=71.5348, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=451]=1269, stp[ipn_0]=71.4894).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18630 對此問題而言太小,
##   (pastp=87.7771, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=58]=852, stp[ipn_0]=86.4821).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2311

control, N = 1161

treatment, N = 1151

p-value2

age

229

51.45 ± 13.07 (23 - 75)

50.80 ± 13.49 (23 - 75)

52.10 ± 12.66 (28 - 75)

0.455

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

231

0.330

f

187 (81%)

91 (78%)

96 (83%)

m

44 (19%)

25 (22%)

19 (17%)

occupation

231

day_training

6 (2.6%)

2 (1.7%)

4 (3.5%)

full_time

26 (11%)

13 (11%)

13 (11%)

homemaker

32 (14%)

15 (13%)

17 (15%)

other

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

part_time

42 (18%)

23 (20%)

19 (17%)

retired

56 (24%)

26 (22%)

30 (26%)

self_employ

8 (3.5%)

4 (3.4%)

4 (3.5%)

shelter

3 (1.3%)

3 (2.6%)

0 (0%)

student

2 (0.9%)

0 (0%)

2 (1.7%)

t_and_e

4 (1.7%)

3 (2.6%)

1 (0.9%)

unemploy

50 (22%)

27 (23%)

23 (20%)

marital

231

0.937

cohabitation

1 (0.4%)

0 (0%)

1 (0.9%)

divore

25 (11%)

14 (12%)

11 (9.6%)

in_relationship

4 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

2 (1.7%)

married

70 (30%)

32 (28%)

38 (33%)

none

109 (47%)

56 (48%)

53 (46%)

seperation

3 (1.3%)

2 (1.7%)

1 (0.9%)

widow

19 (8.2%)

10 (8.6%)

9 (7.8%)

edu

231

0.544

bachelor

48 (21%)

20 (17%)

28 (24%)

diploma

39 (17%)

24 (21%)

15 (13%)

hd_ad

5 (2.2%)

4 (3.4%)

1 (0.9%)

postgraduate

15 (6.5%)

8 (6.9%)

7 (6.1%)

primary

19 (8.2%)

9 (7.8%)

10 (8.7%)

secondary_1_3

27 (12%)

15 (13%)

12 (10%)

secondary_4_5

65 (28%)

30 (26%)

35 (30%)

secondary_6_7

13 (5.6%)

6 (5.2%)

7 (6.1%)

fam_income

231

10001_12000

7 (3.0%)

2 (1.7%)

5 (4.3%)

12001_14000

11 (4.8%)

4 (3.4%)

7 (6.1%)

14001_16000

12 (5.2%)

4 (3.4%)

8 (7.0%)

16001_18000

5 (2.2%)

3 (2.6%)

2 (1.7%)

18001_20000

10 (4.3%)

7 (6.0%)

3 (2.6%)

20001_above

39 (17%)

23 (20%)

16 (14%)

2001_4000

34 (15%)

17 (15%)

17 (15%)

4001_6000

30 (13%)

13 (11%)

17 (15%)

6001_8000

21 (9.1%)

12 (10%)

9 (7.8%)

8001_10000

20 (8.7%)

11 (9.5%)

9 (7.8%)

below_2000

42 (18%)

20 (17%)

22 (19%)

medication

231

207 (90%)

104 (90%)

103 (90%)

0.982

onset_duration

229

15.29 ± 10.89 (0 - 63)

14.84 ± 11.05 (0 - 56)

15.75 ± 10.74 (0 - 63)

0.530

Unknown

2

0

2

onset_age

227

36.26 ± 14.84 (-18 - 72)

35.88 ± 13.81 (10 - 72)

36.65 ± 15.86 (-18 - 68)

0.698

Unknown

4

2

2

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 2311

control, N = 1161

treatment, N = 1151

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

231

3.16 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)

3.19 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

0.711

recovery_stage_b

231

17.87 ± 2.94 (4 - 24)

18.03 ± 3.15 (4 - 24)

17.72 ± 2.71 (9 - 24)

0.432

ras_confidence

231

29.81 ± 5.55 (9 - 45)

29.72 ± 5.74 (9 - 45)

29.90 ± 5.37 (9 - 45)

0.815

ras_willingness

231

11.65 ± 2.11 (3 - 15)

11.64 ± 2.06 (5 - 15)

11.65 ± 2.16 (3 - 15)

0.959

ras_goal

231

17.31 ± 3.31 (5 - 25)

17.17 ± 3.36 (5 - 25)

17.45 ± 3.27 (5 - 25)

0.522

ras_reliance

231

13.21 ± 2.86 (4 - 20)

13.09 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)

13.33 ± 2.90 (4 - 20)

0.533

ras_domination

231

9.76 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)

9.99 ± 2.45 (3 - 15)

9.53 ± 2.36 (3 - 15)

0.147

symptom

231

30.61 ± 9.75 (14 - 70)

31.07 ± 10.40 (14 - 70)

30.16 ± 9.08 (14 - 56)

0.478

slof_work

231

22.17 ± 4.67 (10 - 30)

22.25 ± 4.41 (12 - 30)

22.09 ± 4.93 (10 - 30)

0.791

slof_relationship

231

24.99 ± 5.76 (9 - 35)

24.62 ± 5.85 (9 - 35)

25.37 ± 5.67 (11 - 35)

0.327

satisfaction

231

20.35 ± 7.09 (5 - 35)

19.89 ± 7.10 (5 - 35)

20.82 ± 7.08 (5 - 35)

0.320

mhc_emotional

231

10.80 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

10.73 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.86 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

0.795

mhc_social

231

15.26 ± 5.84 (5 - 30)

15.29 ± 5.99 (5 - 30)

15.23 ± 5.71 (5 - 30)

0.931

mhc_psychological

231

21.79 ± 6.75 (6 - 36)

21.77 ± 6.78 (6 - 36)

21.81 ± 6.75 (6 - 36)

0.963

resilisnce

231

16.60 ± 4.52 (6 - 30)

16.22 ± 4.26 (6 - 30)

16.99 ± 4.76 (6 - 30)

0.193

social_provision

231

13.58 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.72 (5 - 20)

13.90 ± 2.80 (5 - 20)

0.077

els_value_living

231

16.99 ± 3.11 (5 - 25)

16.89 ± 3.13 (6 - 25)

17.09 ± 3.11 (5 - 25)

0.628

els_life_fulfill

231

12.78 ± 3.30 (4 - 20)

12.53 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)

13.03 ± 3.22 (4 - 20)

0.242

els

231

29.77 ± 5.87 (9 - 45)

29.41 ± 5.96 (11 - 45)

30.12 ± 5.79 (9 - 45)

0.361

social_connect

231

26.76 ± 9.01 (8 - 48)

27.26 ± 8.91 (8 - 48)

26.26 ± 9.13 (8 - 48)

0.401

shs_agency

231

14.36 ± 4.95 (3 - 24)

13.99 ± 4.92 (3 - 24)

14.74 ± 4.98 (3 - 24)

0.252

shs_pathway

231

15.81 ± 4.16 (3 - 24)

15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24)

16.18 ± 3.94 (4 - 24)

0.171

shs

231

30.17 ± 8.72 (6 - 48)

29.42 ± 8.89 (6 - 48)

30.92 ± 8.51 (7 - 48)

0.192

esteem

231

12.71 ± 1.65 (9 - 20)

12.77 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)

12.65 ± 1.54 (10 - 20)

0.596

mlq_search

231

14.74 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

14.45 ± 3.58 (3 - 21)

15.03 ± 3.45 (3 - 21)

0.213

mlq_presence

231

13.44 ± 4.28 (3 - 21)

13.31 ± 4.19 (3 - 21)

13.57 ± 4.38 (3 - 21)

0.652

mlq

231

28.17 ± 7.00 (6 - 42)

27.76 ± 7.01 (6 - 42)

28.59 ± 6.99 (6 - 42)

0.367

empower

231

19.22 ± 4.42 (6 - 30)

19.00 ± 4.44 (6 - 30)

19.44 ± 4.41 (6 - 30)

0.447

ismi_resistance

231

14.37 ± 2.66 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.55 (6 - 20)

14.31 ± 2.77 (5 - 20)

0.755

ismi_discrimation

231

11.69 ± 3.08 (5 - 20)

11.73 ± 3.06 (5 - 20)

11.65 ± 3.11 (5 - 20)

0.843

sss_affective

231

10.39 ± 3.65 (3 - 18)

10.38 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)

10.39 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.980

sss_behavior

231

10.04 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

10.20 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

9.88 ± 3.69 (3 - 18)

0.516

sss_cognitive

231

8.76 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

8.70 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

8.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.809

sss

231

29.18 ± 10.44 (9 - 54)

29.28 ± 10.45 (9 - 54)

29.09 ± 10.48 (9 - 54)

0.891

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.19

0.111

2.97, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.059

0.158

-0.369, 0.250

0.708

time_point

1st

2nd

0.130

0.152

-0.169, 0.428

0.396

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.164

0.220

-0.268, 0.595

0.459

Pseudo R square

0.008

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

18.0

0.276

17.5, 18.6

group

control

treatment

-0.304

0.391

-1.07, 0.462

0.437

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.180

0.295

-0.757, 0.397

0.542

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.780

0.427

-0.057, 1.62

0.070

Pseudo R square

0.005

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.7

0.525

28.7, 30.8

group

control

treatment

0.172

0.744

-1.29, 1.63

0.818

time_point

1st

2nd

0.717

0.493

-0.249, 1.68

0.148

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.19

0.715

-0.213, 2.59

0.099

Pseudo R square

0.017

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.6

0.195

11.3, 12.0

group

control

treatment

0.014

0.276

-0.527, 0.556

0.959

time_point

1st

2nd

0.122

0.206

-0.282, 0.526

0.556

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.317

0.299

-0.270, 0.903

0.291

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.2

0.309

16.6, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.280

0.438

-0.579, 1.14

0.524

time_point

1st

2nd

0.282

0.312

-0.330, 0.893

0.368

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.693

0.453

-0.194, 1.58

0.128

Pseudo R square

0.016

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.272

12.6, 13.6

group

control

treatment

0.236

0.385

-0.519, 0.990

0.541

time_point

1st

2nd

0.339

0.264

-0.178, 0.856

0.201

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.384

0.383

-0.366, 1.13

0.318

Pseudo R square

0.012

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.99

0.223

9.55, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.461

0.316

-1.08, 0.159

0.146

time_point

1st

2nd

0.057

0.261

-0.454, 0.569

0.826

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.865

0.378

0.123, 1.61

0.024

Pseudo R square

0.017

symptom

(Intercept)

31.1

0.909

29.3, 32.8

group

control

treatment

-0.912

1.288

-3.44, 1.61

0.479

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.49

0.805

-3.07, 0.086

0.066

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.125

1.168

-2.17, 2.41

0.915

Pseudo R square

0.007

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.3

0.431

21.4, 23.1

group

control

treatment

-0.163

0.610

-1.36, 1.03

0.790

time_point

1st

2nd

0.327

0.421

-0.499, 1.15

0.439

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.348

0.611

-0.850, 1.55

0.570

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.6

0.535

23.6, 25.7

group

control

treatment

0.745

0.758

-0.741, 2.23

0.327

time_point

1st

2nd

0.067

0.517

-0.946, 1.08

0.897

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.764

0.750

-0.706, 2.23

0.310

Pseudo R square

0.010

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.9

0.660

18.6, 21.2

group

control

treatment

0.929

0.935

-0.903, 2.76

0.321

time_point

1st

2nd

0.974

0.601

-0.204, 2.15

0.107

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.586

0.872

-1.12, 2.30

0.502

Pseudo R square

0.014

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.347

10.1, 11.4

group

control

treatment

0.128

0.492

-0.836, 1.09

0.795

time_point

1st

2nd

0.411

0.298

-0.173, 0.995

0.170

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.090

0.433

-0.938, 0.758

0.836

Pseudo R square

0.002

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.3

0.555

14.2, 16.4

group

control

treatment

-0.067

0.787

-1.61, 1.48

0.932

time_point

1st

2nd

0.865

0.511

-0.136, 1.87

0.093

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.082

0.741

-1.54, 1.37

0.912

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.644

20.5, 23.0

group

control

treatment

0.041

0.913

-1.75, 1.83

0.964

time_point

1st

2nd

1.16

0.569

0.043, 2.27

0.044

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.234

0.826

-1.85, 1.38

0.777

Pseudo R square

0.005

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.2

0.413

15.4, 17.0

group

control

treatment

0.776

0.585

-0.371, 1.92

0.186

time_point

1st

2nd

0.921

0.431

0.075, 1.77

0.035

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.705

0.626

-0.521, 1.93

0.261

Pseudo R square

0.032

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.264

12.7, 13.8

group

control

treatment

0.646

0.375

-0.089, 1.38

0.086

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.141

0.268

-0.666, 0.383

0.598

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.364

0.388

-0.397, 1.13

0.349

Pseudo R square

0.019

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.9

0.293

16.3, 17.5

group

control

treatment

0.199

0.415

-0.615, 1.01

0.632

time_point

1st

2nd

0.363

0.291

-0.207, 0.934

0.214

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.446

0.422

-0.381, 1.27

0.292

Pseudo R square

0.012

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.5

0.307

11.9, 13.1

group

control

treatment

0.509

0.435

-0.343, 1.36

0.243

time_point

1st

2nd

0.237

0.283

-0.318, 0.791

0.404

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.383

0.411

-0.422, 1.19

0.353

Pseudo R square

0.014

els

(Intercept)

29.4

0.554

28.3, 30.5

group

control

treatment

0.708

0.785

-0.830, 2.25

0.368

time_point

1st

2nd

0.625

0.491

-0.337, 1.59

0.205

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.780

0.712

-0.616, 2.18

0.275

Pseudo R square

0.014

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.3

0.851

25.6, 28.9

group

control

treatment

-0.998

1.206

-3.36, 1.37

0.409

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.003

0.753

-1.48, 1.47

0.997

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.97

1.092

-5.11, -0.830

0.007

Pseudo R square

0.023

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.463

13.1, 14.9

group

control

treatment

0.748

0.656

-0.539, 2.03

0.256

time_point

1st

2nd

0.583

0.407

-0.215, 1.38

0.154

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.293

0.591

-0.866, 1.45

0.621

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.376

14.7, 16.2

group

control

treatment

0.752

0.533

-0.293, 1.80

0.160

time_point

1st

2nd

0.669

0.365

-0.047, 1.39

0.069

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.237

0.530

-0.802, 1.28

0.656

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs

(Intercept)

29.4

0.800

27.9, 31.0

group

control

treatment

1.50

1.134

-0.722, 3.72

0.187

time_point

1st

2nd

1.25

0.709

-0.140, 2.64

0.080

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.516

1.029

-1.50, 2.53

0.617

Pseudo R square

0.016

esteem

(Intercept)

12.8

0.146

12.5, 13.1

group

control

treatment

-0.115

0.208

-0.522, 0.292

0.580

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.150

0.190

-0.522, 0.222

0.430

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.110

0.274

-0.428, 0.648

0.689

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.324

13.8, 15.1

group

control

treatment

0.578

0.460

-0.323, 1.48

0.210

time_point

1st

2nd

0.810

0.365

0.094, 1.53

0.028

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.563

0.530

-1.60, 0.475

0.289

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.391

12.5, 14.1

group

control

treatment

0.255

0.554

-0.830, 1.34

0.646

time_point

1st

2nd

0.959

0.423

0.129, 1.79

0.025

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.218

0.614

-1.42, 0.985

0.723

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq

(Intercept)

27.8

0.649

26.5, 29.0

group

control

treatment

0.833

0.919

-0.969, 2.63

0.366

time_point

1st

2nd

1.77

0.706

0.382, 3.15

0.013

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.768

1.023

-2.77, 1.24

0.454

Pseudo R square

0.011

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.418

18.2, 19.8

group

control

treatment

0.443

0.592

-0.717, 1.60

0.454

time_point

1st

2nd

1.04

0.397

0.257, 1.81

0.010

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.484

0.576

-1.61, 0.644

0.402

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.241

14.0, 14.9

group

control

treatment

-0.109

0.341

-0.778, 0.559

0.749

time_point

1st

2nd

0.378

0.279

-0.169, 0.924

0.177

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.517

0.404

-0.275, 1.31

0.203

Pseudo R square

0.016

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.7

0.286

11.2, 12.3

group

control

treatment

-0.081

0.406

-0.876, 0.715

0.843

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.539

0.340

-1.21, 0.128

0.115

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.445

0.493

-1.41, 0.520

0.367

Pseudo R square

0.016

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.4

0.340

9.71, 11.0

group

control

treatment

0.012

0.482

-0.933, 0.957

0.980

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.550

0.313

-1.16, 0.065

0.082

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.345

0.455

-1.24, 0.547

0.450

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.2

0.343

9.53, 10.9

group

control

treatment

-0.320

0.486

-1.27, 0.633

0.511

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.674

0.315

-1.29, -0.057

0.034

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.063

0.457

-0.832, 0.958

0.891

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.70

0.340

8.03, 9.37

group

control

treatment

0.119

0.482

-0.826, 1.06

0.805

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.578

0.318

-1.20, 0.046

0.072

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.260

0.462

-1.17, 0.645

0.574

Pseudo R square

0.009

sss

(Intercept)

29.3

0.963

27.4, 31.2

group

control

treatment

-0.189

1.365

-2.86, 2.49

0.890

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.76

0.808

-3.35, -0.180

0.031

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.482

1.173

-2.78, 1.82

0.682

Pseudo R square

0.009

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.19 (95% CI [2.97, 3.41], t(354) = 28.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.25], t(354) = -0.38, p = 0.708; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43], t(354) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.60], t(354) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.96e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.03 (95% CI [17.48, 18.57], t(354) = 65.32, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.46], t(354) = -0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.16])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.40], t(354) = -0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.62], t(354) = 1.83, p = 0.068; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.72 (95% CI [28.69, 30.75], t(354) = 56.60, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.63], t(354) = 0.23, p = 0.818; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.68], t(354) = 1.46, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.21, 2.59], t(354) = 1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.64 (95% CI [11.26, 12.02], t(354) = 59.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.56], t(354) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 6.81e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.53], t(354) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.90], t(354) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.17 (95% CI [16.57, 17.78], t(354) = 55.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.14], t(354) = 0.64, p = 0.523; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.89], t(354) = 0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.58], t(354) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.09 (95% CI [12.56, 13.63], t(354) = 48.20, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.99], t(354) = 0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.86], t(354) = 1.29, p = 0.199; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.13], t(354) = 1.00, p = 0.316; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.99 (95% CI [9.55, 10.43], t(354) = 44.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.16], t(354) = -1.46, p = 0.145; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.07])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.57], t(354) = 0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.12, 1.61], t(354) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [0.05, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.07 (95% CI [29.29, 32.85], t(354) = 34.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.91, 95% CI [-3.44, 1.61], t(354) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.49, 95% CI [-3.07, 0.09], t(354) = -1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 8.86e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-2.17, 2.41], t(354) = 0.11, p = 0.915; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.25 (95% CI [21.41, 23.09], t(354) = 51.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-1.36, 1.03], t(354) = -0.27, p = 0.789; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.15], t(354) = 0.78, p = 0.437; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.85, 1.55], t(354) = 0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.33])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.62 (95% CI [23.57, 25.67], t(354) = 46.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-0.74, 2.23], t(354) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.08], t(354) = 0.13, p = 0.897; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.23], t(354) = 1.02, p = 0.308; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.89 (95% CI [18.60, 21.18], t(354) = 30.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-0.90, 2.76], t(354) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-0.20, 2.15], t(354) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-1.12, 2.30], t(354) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.73 (95% CI [10.05, 11.41], t(354) = 30.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.09], t(354) = 0.26, p = 0.794; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.00], t(354) = 1.38, p = 0.168; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.76], t(354) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.47e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.29 (95% CI [14.20, 16.38], t(354) = 27.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.48], t(354) = -0.09, p = 0.932; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.87], t(354) = 1.69, p = 0.090; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.37], t(354) = -0.11, p = 0.912; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.29e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.77 (95% CI [20.50, 23.03], t(354) = 33.78, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.75, 1.83], t(354) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 6.03e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [0.04, 2.27], t(354) = 2.04, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [6.21e-03, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.38], t(354) = -0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.22 (95% CI [15.41, 17.02], t(354) = 39.26, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.92], t(354) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [0.07, 1.77], t(354) = 2.13, p = 0.033; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.02, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.93], t(354) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.43])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.74, 13.78], t(354) = 50.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.38], t(354) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.38], t(354) = -0.53, p = 0.597; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.13], t(354) = 0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.89 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(354) = 57.63, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.01], t(354) = 0.48, p = 0.632; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.93], t(354) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.27], t(354) = 1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [11.92, 13.13], t(354) = 40.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.36], t(354) = 1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.79], t(354) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.24])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.19], t(354) = 0.93, p = 0.351; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.41 (95% CI [28.33, 30.50], t(354) = 53.12, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.83, 2.25], t(354) = 0.90, p = 0.367; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.59], t(354) = 1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.18], t(354) = 1.10, p = 0.273; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.26 (95% CI [25.59, 28.93], t(354) = 32.03, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-3.36, 1.37], t(354) = -0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.55e-03, 95% CI [-1.48, 1.47], t(354) = -3.39e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = -2.71e-04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.97, 95% CI [-5.11, -0.83], t(354) = -2.72, p = 0.007; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.54, -0.09])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.99 (95% CI [13.08, 14.90], t(354) = 30.21, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.54, 2.03], t(354) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.38], t(354) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.45], t(354) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(354) = 41.02, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.80], t(354) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.39], t(354) = 1.83, p = 0.067; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.28], t(354) = 0.45, p = 0.655; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.42 (95% CI [27.85, 30.99], t(354) = 36.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.50, 95% CI [-0.72, 3.72], t(354) = 1.32, p = 0.186; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 2.64], t(354) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.53], t(354) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.69e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.77 (95% CI [12.48, 13.05], t(354) = 87.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.29], t(354) = -0.55, p = 0.579; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.22], t(354) = -0.79, p = 0.429; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.14])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.65], t(354) = 0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.41])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.60e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.45 (95% CI [13.81, 15.08], t(354) = 44.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.48], t(354) = 1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [0.09, 1.53], t(354) = 2.22, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.56, 95% CI [-1.60, 0.47], t(354) = -1.06, p = 0.288; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.14])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.90e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.54, 14.08], t(354) = 34.07, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.34], t(354) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.32])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [0.13, 1.79], t(354) = 2.27, p = 0.024; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.03, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.99], t(354) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.23])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.76 (95% CI [26.49, 29.03], t(354) = 42.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.63], t(354) = 0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.77, 95% CI [0.38, 3.15], t(354) = 2.50, p = 0.012; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.05, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-2.77, 1.24], t(354) = -0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.18])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.18, 19.82], t(354) = 45.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.60], t(354) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.36])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.04, 95% CI [0.26, 1.81], t(354) = 2.61, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [0.06, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.61, 0.64], t(354) = -0.84, p = 0.400; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.95, 14.89], t(354) = 59.92, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.56], t(354) = -0.32, p = 0.749; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.92], t(354) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.31], t(354) = 1.28, p = 0.201; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.73 (95% CI [11.17, 12.29], t(354) = 40.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.72], t(354) = -0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.13], t(354) = -1.58, p = 0.113; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.04])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.52], t(354) = -0.90, p = 0.366; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.38e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.38 (95% CI [9.71, 11.05], t(354) = 30.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.96], t(354) = 0.02, p = 0.980; Std. beta = 3.27e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.55, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.06], t(354) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.24, 0.55], t(354) = -0.76, p = 0.449; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.41e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.20 (95% CI [9.53, 10.87], t(354) = 29.73, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.27, 0.63], t(354) = -0.66, p = 0.510; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.06], t(354) = -2.14, p = 0.032; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.35, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.83, 0.96], t(354) = 0.14, p = 0.891; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.70 (95% CI [8.03, 9.37], t(354) = 25.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.83, 1.06], t(354) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.05], t(354) = -1.82, p = 0.069; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.01])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.65], t(354) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.81e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.28 (95% CI [27.39, 31.16], t(354) = 30.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-2.86, 2.49], t(354) = -0.14, p = 0.890; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.35, -0.18], t(354) = -2.18, p = 0.029; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.32, -0.02])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-2.78, 1.82], t(354) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

1,139.934

1,151.593

-566.967

1,133.934

recovery_stage_a

random

6

1,141.840

1,165.157

-564.920

1,129.840

4.094

3

0.251

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,744.405

1,756.063

-869.202

1,738.405

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,746.213

1,769.530

-867.107

1,734.213

4.191

3

0.242

ras_confidence

null

3

2,189.929

2,201.587

-1,091.964

2,183.929

ras_confidence

random

6

2,180.313

2,203.629

-1,084.156

2,168.313

15.616

3

0.001

ras_willingness

null

3

1,492.423

1,504.081

-743.211

1,486.423

ras_willingness

random

6

1,493.799

1,517.116

-740.900

1,481.799

4.624

3

0.202

ras_goal

null

3

1,820.087

1,831.745

-907.043

1,814.087

ras_goal

random

6

1,815.316

1,838.633

-901.658

1,803.316

10.771

3

0.013

ras_reliance

null

3

1,716.789

1,728.447

-855.394

1,710.789

ras_reliance

random

6

1,713.648

1,736.965

-850.824

1,701.648

9.141

3

0.027

ras_domination

null

3

1,618.547

1,630.205

-806.273

1,612.547

ras_domination

random

6

1,612.820

1,636.136

-800.410

1,600.820

11.727

3

0.008

symptom

null

3

2,562.227

2,573.886

-1,278.114

2,556.227

symptom

random

6

2,561.758

2,585.074

-1,274.879

2,549.758

6.469

3

0.091

slof_work

null

3

2,044.226

2,055.884

-1,019.113

2,038.226

slof_work

random

6

2,047.260

2,070.577

-1,017.630

2,035.260

2.965

3

0.397

slof_relationship

null

3

2,198.332

2,209.991

-1,096.166

2,192.332

slof_relationship

random

6

2,200.199

2,223.516

-1,094.099

2,188.199

4.134

3

0.247

satisfaction

null

3

2,341.747

2,353.405

-1,167.873

2,335.747

satisfaction

random

6

2,337.727

2,361.043

-1,162.863

2,325.727

10.020

3

0.018

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,858.359

1,870.018

-926.180

1,852.359

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,861.359

1,884.676

-924.680

1,849.359

3.000

3

0.392

mhc_social

null

3

2,215.081

2,226.739

-1,104.540

2,209.081

mhc_social

random

6

2,216.144

2,239.461

-1,102.072

2,204.144

4.937

3

0.176

mhc_psychological

null

3

2,314.073

2,325.731

-1,154.036

2,308.073

mhc_psychological

random

6

2,313.627

2,336.943

-1,150.813

2,301.627

6.446

3

0.092

resilisnce

null

3

2,045.461

2,057.120

-1,019.731

2,039.461

resilisnce

random

6

2,031.722

2,055.039

-1,009.861

2,019.722

19.740

3

0.000

social_provision

null

3

1,702.982

1,714.640

-848.491

1,696.982

social_provision

random

6

1,703.603

1,726.920

-845.802

1,691.603

5.379

3

0.146

els_value_living

null

3

1,776.460

1,788.118

-885.230

1,770.460

els_value_living

random

6

1,773.318

1,796.635

-880.659

1,761.318

9.141

3

0.027

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,790.643

1,802.301

-892.321

1,784.643

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,789.465

1,812.782

-888.733

1,777.465

7.177

3

0.066

els

null

3

2,209.508

2,221.166

-1,101.754

2,203.508

els

random

6

2,205.138

2,228.455

-1,096.569

2,193.138

10.370

3

0.016

social_connect

null

3

2,524.400

2,536.058

-1,259.200

2,518.400

social_connect

random

6

2,514.226

2,537.543

-1,251.113

2,502.226

16.174

3

0.001

shs_agency

null

3

2,076.543

2,088.201

-1,035.271

2,070.543

shs_agency

random

6

2,074.734

2,098.051

-1,031.367

2,062.734

7.809

3

0.050

shs_pathway

null

3

1,953.399

1,965.057

-973.700

1,947.399

shs_pathway

random

6

1,948.099

1,971.415

-968.049

1,936.099

11.300

3

0.010

shs

null

3

2,474.839

2,486.497

-1,234.419

2,468.839

shs

random

6

2,470.098

2,493.414

-1,229.049

2,458.098

10.741

3

0.013

esteem

null

3

1,324.090

1,335.748

-659.045

1,318.090

esteem

random

6

1,329.246

1,352.563

-658.623

1,317.246

0.844

3

0.839

mlq_search

null

3

1,874.160

1,885.818

-934.080

1,868.160

mlq_search

random

6

1,874.026

1,897.343

-931.013

1,862.026

6.134

3

0.105

mlq_presence

null

3

2,001.633

2,013.291

-997.816

1,995.633

mlq_presence

random

6

1,999.736

2,023.052

-993.868

1,987.736

7.897

3

0.048

mlq

null

3

2,368.140

2,379.798

-1,181.070

2,362.140

mlq

random

6

2,365.768

2,389.085

-1,176.884

2,353.768

8.371

3

0.039

empower

null

3

2,020.930

2,032.589

-1,007.465

2,014.930

empower

random

6

2,018.294

2,041.610

-1,003.147

2,006.294

8.637

3

0.035

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,670.214

1,681.873

-832.107

1,664.214

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,665.154

1,688.470

-826.577

1,653.154

11.061

3

0.011

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,799.751

1,811.409

-896.875

1,793.751

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,795.455

1,818.771

-891.727

1,783.455

10.296

3

0.016

sss_affective

null

3

1,867.842

1,879.500

-930.921

1,861.842

sss_affective

random

6

1,863.447

1,886.764

-925.723

1,851.447

10.395

3

0.015

sss_behavior

null

3

1,870.781

1,882.439

-932.390

1,864.781

sss_behavior

random

6

1,868.431

1,891.748

-928.216

1,856.431

8.350

3

0.039

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,870.742

1,882.400

-932.371

1,864.742

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,867.202

1,890.518

-927.601

1,855.202

9.541

3

0.023

sss

null

3

2,596.499

2,608.158

-1,295.250

2,590.499

sss

random

6

2,590.836

2,614.153

-1,289.418

2,578.836

11.663

3

0.009

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

116

3.19 ± 1.20

115

3.13 ± 1.20

0.708

0.062

recovery_stage_a

2nd

68

3.32 ± 1.17

-0.136

61

3.42 ± 1.16

-0.308

0.612

-0.110

recovery_stage_b

1st

116

18.03 ± 2.97

115

17.72 ± 2.97

0.437

0.170

recovery_stage_b

2nd

68

17.85 ± 2.71

0.101

61

18.32 ± 2.68

-0.336

0.317

-0.267

ras_confidence

1st

116

29.72 ± 5.66

115

29.90 ± 5.66

0.818

-0.058

ras_confidence

2nd

68

30.44 ± 5.00

-0.242

61

31.80 ± 4.91

-0.644

0.121

-0.460

ras_willingness

1st

116

11.64 ± 2.10

115

11.65 ± 2.10

0.959

-0.011

ras_willingness

2nd

68

11.76 ± 1.91

-0.098

61

12.09 ± 1.88

-0.351

0.323

-0.265

ras_goal

1st

116

17.17 ± 3.33

115

17.45 ± 3.33

0.524

-0.149

ras_goal

2nd

68

17.45 ± 3.00

-0.150

61

18.43 ± 2.95

-0.518

0.064

-0.517

ras_reliance

1st

116

13.09 ± 2.93

115

13.33 ± 2.93

0.541

-0.149

ras_reliance

2nd

68

13.43 ± 2.61

-0.214

61

14.05 ± 2.56

-0.455

0.175

-0.390

ras_domination

1st

116

9.99 ± 2.40

115

9.53 ± 2.40

0.146

0.289

ras_domination

2nd

68

10.05 ± 2.25

-0.036

61

10.45 ± 2.22

-0.578

0.306

-0.253

symptom

1st

116

31.07 ± 9.79

115

30.16 ± 9.79

0.479

0.189

symptom

2nd

68

29.58 ± 8.55

0.310

61

28.79 ± 8.37

0.284

0.598

0.164

slof_work

1st

116

22.25 ± 4.64

115

22.09 ± 4.64

0.790

0.064

slof_work

2nd

68

22.58 ± 4.14

-0.129

61

22.76 ± 4.07

-0.266

0.798

-0.073

slof_relationship

1st

116

24.62 ± 5.76

115

25.37 ± 5.76

0.327

-0.240

slof_relationship

2nd

68

24.69 ± 5.13

-0.022

61

26.20 ± 5.04

-0.267

0.093

-0.485

satisfaction

1st

116

19.89 ± 7.10

115

20.82 ± 7.10

0.321

-0.258

satisfaction

2nd

68

20.86 ± 6.25

-0.270

61

22.38 ± 6.12

-0.433

0.165

-0.421

mhc_emotional

1st

116

10.73 ± 3.74

115

10.86 ± 3.74

0.795

-0.072

mhc_emotional

2nd

68

11.14 ± 3.24

-0.231

61

11.18 ± 3.17

-0.181

0.946

-0.022

mhc_social

1st

116

15.29 ± 5.98

115

15.23 ± 5.98

0.932

0.022

mhc_social

2nd

68

16.16 ± 5.27

-0.282

61

16.01 ± 5.17

-0.256

0.871

0.049

mhc_psychological

1st

116

21.77 ± 6.94

115

21.81 ± 6.94

0.964

-0.012

mhc_psychological

2nd

68

22.93 ± 6.06

-0.340

61

22.73 ± 5.93

-0.271

0.856

0.057

resilisnce

1st

116

16.22 ± 4.45

115

16.99 ± 4.45

0.186

-0.297

resilisnce

2nd

68

17.14 ± 4.04

-0.353

61

18.62 ± 3.98

-0.623

0.037

-0.567

social_provision

1st

116

13.26 ± 2.85

115

13.90 ± 2.85

0.086

-0.400

social_provision

2nd

68

13.12 ± 2.57

0.088

61

14.13 ± 2.52

-0.138

0.025

-0.625

els_value_living

1st

116

16.89 ± 3.16

115

17.09 ± 3.16

0.632

-0.113

els_value_living

2nd

68

17.25 ± 2.83

-0.207

61

17.90 ± 2.78

-0.462

0.193

-0.368

els_life_fulfill

1st

116

12.53 ± 3.30

115

13.03 ± 3.30

0.243

-0.300

els_life_fulfill

2nd

68

12.76 ± 2.91

-0.140

61

13.65 ± 2.86

-0.365

0.080

-0.526

els

1st

116

29.41 ± 5.96

115

30.12 ± 5.96

0.368

-0.241

els

2nd

68

30.04 ± 5.21

-0.213

61

31.53 ± 5.10

-0.479

0.102

-0.507

social_connect

1st

116

27.26 ± 9.17

115

26.26 ± 9.17

0.409

0.222

social_connect

2nd

68

27.26 ± 8.01

0.001

61

23.29 ± 7.84

0.661

0.005

0.882

shs_agency

1st

116

13.99 ± 4.99

115

14.74 ± 4.99

0.256

-0.307

shs_agency

2nd

68

14.57 ± 4.35

-0.239

61

15.62 ± 4.26

-0.360

0.171

-0.427

shs_pathway

1st

116

15.43 ± 4.05

115

16.18 ± 4.05

0.160

-0.342

shs_pathway

2nd

68

16.10 ± 3.61

-0.304

61

17.09 ± 3.55

-0.412

0.118

-0.450

shs

1st

116

29.42 ± 8.61

115

30.92 ± 8.61

0.187

-0.353

shs

2nd

68

30.67 ± 7.53

-0.295

61

32.69 ± 7.37

-0.416

0.126

-0.475

esteem

1st

116

12.77 ± 1.58

115

12.65 ± 1.58

0.580

0.098

esteem

2nd

68

12.62 ± 1.51

0.128

61

12.61 ± 1.51

0.034

0.985

0.004

mlq_search

1st

116

14.45 ± 3.49

115

15.03 ± 3.49

0.210

-0.260

mlq_search

2nd

68

15.26 ± 3.23

-0.364

61

15.27 ± 3.20

-0.111

0.979

-0.007

mlq_presence

1st

116

13.31 ± 4.21

115

13.57 ± 4.21

0.646

-0.099

mlq_presence

2nd

68

14.27 ± 3.86

-0.373

61

14.31 ± 3.81

-0.288

0.956

-0.014

mlq

1st

116

27.76 ± 6.99

115

28.59 ± 6.99

0.366

-0.194

mlq

2nd

68

29.52 ± 6.41

-0.412

61

29.59 ± 6.33

-0.233

0.954

-0.015

empower

1st

116

19.00 ± 4.50

115

19.44 ± 4.50

0.454

-0.186

empower

2nd

68

20.04 ± 3.99

-0.434

61

19.99 ± 3.92

-0.231

0.953

0.017

ismi_resistance

1st

116

14.42 ± 2.59

115

14.31 ± 2.59

0.749

0.064

ismi_resistance

2nd

68

14.80 ± 2.42

-0.222

61

15.21 ± 2.39

-0.525

0.337

-0.239

ismi_discrimation

1st

116

11.73 ± 3.08

115

11.65 ± 3.08

0.843

0.039

ismi_discrimation

2nd

68

11.19 ± 2.89

0.258

61

10.67 ± 2.87

0.472

0.301

0.252

sss_affective

1st

116

10.38 ± 3.66

115

10.39 ± 3.66

0.980

-0.006

sss_affective

2nd

68

9.83 ± 3.23

0.292

61

9.50 ± 3.16

0.476

0.555

0.177

sss_behavior

1st

116

10.20 ± 3.69

115

9.88 ± 3.69

0.511

0.170

sss_behavior

2nd

68

9.52 ± 3.25

0.357

61

9.27 ± 3.19

0.324

0.651

0.136

sss_cognitive

1st

116

8.70 ± 3.66

115

8.82 ± 3.66

0.805

-0.062

sss_cognitive

2nd

68

8.12 ± 3.24

0.302

61

7.98 ± 3.18

0.439

0.804

0.074

sss

1st

116

29.28 ± 10.37

115

29.09 ± 10.37

0.890

0.039

sss

2nd

68

27.51 ± 8.96

0.366

61

26.84 ± 8.75

0.466

0.668

0.139

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(325.31) = -0.38, p = 0.708, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.25)

2st

t(355.33) = 0.51, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.51)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(282.35) = -0.78, p = 0.437, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.07 to 0.47)

2st

t(355.03) = 1.00, p = 0.317, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.41)

ras_confidence

1st

t(268.24) = 0.23, p = 0.818, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.64)

2st

t(349.72) = 1.56, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.36 to 3.08)

ras_willingness

1st

t(281.26) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.56)

2st

t(354.83) = 0.99, p = 0.323, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.99)

ras_goal

1st

t(275.66) = 0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.14)

2st

t(353.36) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.00)

ras_reliance

1st

t(271.50) = 0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.99)

2st

t(351.61) = 1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.52)

ras_domination

1st

t(295.57) = -1.46, p = 0.146, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.16)

2st

t(356.00) = 1.02, p = 0.306, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.18)

symptom

1st

t(263.35) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.45 to 1.62)

2st

t(345.73) = -0.53, p = 0.598, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-3.72 to 2.15)

slof_work

1st

t(272.31) = -0.27, p = 0.790, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.04)

2st

t(352.00) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.24 to 1.61)

slof_relationship

1st

t(271.05) = 0.98, p = 0.327, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.24)

2st

t(351.38) = 1.68, p = 0.093, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.25 to 3.27)

satisfaction

1st

t(265.64) = 0.99, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.77)

2st

t(347.79) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.63 to 3.66)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(260.96) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.84 to 1.10)

2st

t(343.17) = 0.07, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.15)

mhc_social

1st

t(266.46) = -0.09, p = 0.932, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.48)

2st

t(348.44) = -0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.96 to 1.66)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(263.08) = 0.05, p = 0.964, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.76 to 1.84)

2st

t(345.47) = -0.18, p = 0.856, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.27 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st

t(279.66) = 1.33, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.38 to 1.93)

2st

t(354.49) = 2.10, p = 0.037, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.87)

social_provision

1st

t(275.94) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.38)

2st

t(353.45) = 2.25, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (0.13 to 1.89)

els_value_living

1st

t(273.89) = 0.48, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.02)

2st

t(352.70) = 1.30, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.62)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(266.70) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.37)

2st

t(348.62) = 1.75, p = 0.080, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.89)

els

1st

t(263.35) = 0.90, p = 0.368, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.84 to 2.25)

2st

t(345.74) = 1.64, p = 0.102, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.27)

social_connect

1st

t(263.20) = -0.83, p = 0.409, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-3.37 to 1.38)

2st

t(345.59) = -2.84, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-6.72 to -1.22)

shs_agency

1st

t(262.78) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.54 to 2.04)

2st

t(345.16) = 1.37, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (-0.45 to 2.53)

shs_pathway

1st

t(271.57) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.80)

2st

t(351.65) = 1.57, p = 0.118, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.23)

shs

1st

t(263.40) = 1.32, p = 0.187, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.73 to 3.73)

2st

t(345.79) = 1.54, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.57 to 4.60)

esteem

1st

t(314.07) = -0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.29)

2st

t(355.59) = -0.02, p = 0.985, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.52)

mlq_search

1st

t(289.76) = 1.26, p = 0.210, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.48)

2st

t(355.82) = 0.03, p = 0.979, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.13)

mlq_presence

1st

t(284.35) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.34)

2st

t(355.33) = 0.05, p = 0.956, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.36)

mlq

1st

t(284.84) = 0.91, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.64)

2st

t(355.39) = 0.06, p = 0.954, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.27)

empower

1st

t(269.42) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.61)

2st

t(350.46) = -0.06, p = 0.953, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.41 to 1.33)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(293.95) = -0.32, p = 0.749, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.56)

2st

t(355.97) = 0.96, p = 0.337, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.24)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(298.03) = -0.20, p = 0.843, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.72)

2st

t(356.00) = -1.04, p = 0.301, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.53 to 0.47)

sss_affective

1st

t(266.62) = 0.02, p = 0.980, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.96)

2st

t(348.57) = -0.59, p = 0.555, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.44 to 0.78)

sss_behavior

1st

t(266.21) = -0.66, p = 0.511, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.64)

2st

t(348.25) = -0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.86)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(267.99) = 0.25, p = 0.805, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.07)

2st

t(349.54) = -0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.97)

sss

1st

t(259.31) = -0.14, p = 0.890, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.50)

2st

t(341.12) = -0.43, p = 0.668, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-3.74 to 2.40)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(176.47) = 1.84, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.61)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(152.49) = 1.94, p = 0.109, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.21)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(145.56) = 3.67, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.88 to 2.93)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(151.94) = 2.02, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.01 to 0.87)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(149.17) = 2.97, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.33 to 1.62)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(147.14) = 2.60, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.17 to 1.27)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(159.26) = 3.36, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.38 to 1.46)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(143.21) = -1.61, p = 0.218, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.04 to 0.31)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(147.53) = 1.52, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(146.92) = 1.53, p = 0.258, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.91)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(144.31) = 2.47, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.31 to 2.81)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(142.06) = 1.02, p = 0.615, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.94)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(144.70) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.85)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(143.08) = 1.54, p = 0.251, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.26 to 2.11)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(151.15) = 3.58, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.73 to 2.52)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(149.31) = 0.79, p = 0.860, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.78)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(148.31) = 2.64, p = 0.018, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.20 to 1.42)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(144.82) = 2.08, p = 0.079, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.21)

els

1st vs 2st

t(143.21) = 2.72, p = 0.015, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (0.38 to 2.43)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(143.14) = -3.75, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-4.54 to -1.41)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(142.93) = 2.04, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.03 to 1.72)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(147.18) = 2.36, p = 0.040, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.67)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(143.23) = 2.36, p = 0.039, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (0.29 to 3.24)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(169.49) = -0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.35)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(156.24) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.01)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(153.49) = 1.66, p = 0.196, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.62)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(153.74) = 1.34, p = 0.362, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.46)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(146.13) = 1.32, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.38)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(158.41) = 3.05, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.32 to 1.47)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(160.56) = -2.75, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.69 to -0.28)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(144.78) = -2.71, p = 0.015, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.55 to -0.24)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(144.58) = -1.84, p = 0.134, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.04)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(145.44) = -2.50, p = 0.027, Cohen d = 0.44, 95% CI (-1.50 to -0.18)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(141.28) = -2.64, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-3.93 to -0.56)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(169.94) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.43)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(149.23) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.40)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(143.23) = 1.45, p = 0.296, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.69)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(148.76) = 0.59, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.53)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(146.36) = 0.90, p = 0.737, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.90)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(144.60) = 1.28, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.86)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(155.09) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.57)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(141.18) = -1.85, p = 0.133, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-3.08 to 0.10)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(144.94) = 0.78, p = 0.878, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.16)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(144.41) = 0.13, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.09)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(142.14) = 1.62, p = 0.215, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.22 to 2.16)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(140.19) = 1.38, p = 0.341, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.00)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(142.48) = 1.69, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.88)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(141.07) = 2.03, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.28)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(148.07) = 2.13, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (0.07 to 1.77)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(146.48) = -0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.39)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(145.61) = 1.25, p = 0.429, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.94)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(142.58) = 0.84, p = 0.809, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.80)

els

1st vs 2st

t(141.18) = 1.27, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.60)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(141.12) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.49)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(140.94) = 1.43, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.22 to 1.39)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(144.63) = 1.83, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.39)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(141.20) = 1.76, p = 0.161, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.65)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(163.93) = -0.79, p = 0.862, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.23)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(152.48) = 2.21, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.53)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(150.10) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.12 to 1.80)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(150.32) = 2.50, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.16)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(143.72) = 2.61, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.82)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(154.36) = 1.35, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.17 to 0.93)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(156.21) = -1.58, p = 0.232, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.13)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(142.55) = -1.75, p = 0.164, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.07)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(142.38) = -2.14, p = 0.068, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.30 to -0.05)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(143.12) = -1.81, p = 0.144, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.21 to 0.05)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(139.50) = -2.18, p = 0.062, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-3.36 to -0.16)

Plot

Clinical significance